Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a weapon to commit a felony. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences on appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief, generally alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The district court denied Defendant’s motion for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it found there was no merit to each of Defendant’s claims and denied his motion for postconviction relief without granting an evidentiary hearing. View "State v. Starks" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of attempted second degree murder, first degree assault, and use of a weapon to commit a felony. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant was entitled to a new trial at which the jury could be instructed on the distinction between second degree murder and voluntary sudden quarrel manslaughter. The district court subsequently granted Defendant’s motion for new counsel. Defendant then pled no contest to the amended charge of attempted voluntary manslaughter. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging several claims of error. The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing despite Defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; (2) Defendant’s allegation that the district court erred in hearing his claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel at the hearing on his motion for new counsel prior to his motion for postconviction relief had no merit; and (3) there was no plain error. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

Defendant, whose native language was Dinka Bor, pleaded no contest to first degree murder. After a colloquy, the trial court accepted Defendant’s plea, finding that Defendant had entered his plea freely, voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s plea was voluntary because he could comprehend the proceedings and communicate in English; and (2) Defendant’s counsel was not ineffective for failing to ensure that Defendant understood his constitutional rights, failing to stop the plea hearing, and failing to request an interpreter. View "State v. Bol" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI), third offense, with a blood alcohol concentration of .15 or greater. The district court sentenced Defendant to a period of twenty-four months’ probation and, as a condition of probation, ordered Defendant to serve sixty days in the county jail. Defendant appealed, arguing that the court erred in imposing a jail term as a condition of probation, as that is no longer permissible under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2262. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a jail term is still available as a condition of probation for a felony DUI because Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,197.03(6) is more specific and therefore controls over section 29-2262. View "State v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to robbery. In a separate criminal case, Defendant pleaded no contest to attempted robbery, use of a firearm to commit a felony, and manslaughter. A few days before the sentencing hearing, Defendant moved to withdraw his pleas in both cases, citing newly discovered evidence. After a hearing, the court overruled Defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty and no contest pleas. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court did not err by overruling Defendant’s motion to withdraw his pleas because of newly discovered evidence; and (2) Defendant entered the pleas freely, intelligently, voluntarily, and understandingly. View "State v. Carr" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a plea of no contest to sexual assault of a child, third degree. At sentencing, the district court considered the effect of certain amendments made to Nebraska’s sentencing laws by 2015 Neb. Laws, L.B. 605, which reduced the penalties for a variety of felonies and amended the indeterminate sentencing scheme for Nebraska felonies. The court eventually sentenced Defendant to a prison term of fifty-nine to sixty months. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in finding that he was not entitled to the reduction in penalties for Class IIIA felonies implemented by L.B. 605. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the reduced penalties for Class IIIA felonies did not apply retroactively to Defendant because he committed his offense before the effective date of L.B. 605; and (2) Defendant’s sentence was within the statutory limits and was not plain error. View "State v. Aguallo" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of theft by unlawful taking, more than $500 but less than $1500, a class IV felony. The conviction was based on the accusation that Defendant unlawfully took two items belonging to Hymark Towing: a vehicle and a combine trailer. Defendant was charged with one Class III felony under the theory that the values of the vehicle and the combine trailer could be aggregated because they were “pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct.” The jury found Defendant guilty of unlawfully taking both items but found that the items were not taken pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a finding of “one scheme or course of conduct” is not an essential element of the crime of theft, regardless of whether the State is attempting to aggregate amounts pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-518(7), and therefore, the district court was correct in determining, based on the jury verdict, that Defendant was guilty of a Class IV felony theft offense; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction. View "State v. Duncan" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of discharging a firearm at an inhabited house, occupied building, or occupied vehicle and use of a weapon to commit a felony. The court of appeals affirmed on appeal. Thereafter, Defendant filed a verified motion for postconviction relief, alleging that his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance. The district court denied relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for postconviction relief, as Defendant failed to show he was entitled to relief on his claims; and (2) did not err in failing to allow Defendant to amend his pleadings postjudgment or utilize an improper procedure. View "State v. Robertson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. In this appeal, Defendant's third appeal to the Supreme Court, Defendant argued that he was denied due process by the State’s knowing use of fabricated evidence to obtain his convictions and that his trial counsel acted under an actual conflict of interest during Defendant’s trial and the pendency of his direct appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of relief, holding that the district court did not err in (1) finding that the State did not knowingly use fabricated evidence to obtain Defendant’s convictions; and (2) finding that Defendant’s trial counsel did not operate under a conflict of interest. View "State v. Edwards" on Justia Law

In 1985, Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2015, Appellant filed a second postconviction motion to set aside the conviction and sentence and/or a writ of error coram nobis. The district court denied Appellant’s error coram nobis request and overruled his motion for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in overruling Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief because the motion was not timely filed; and (2) the district court properly denied Appellant’s request for a writ of error coram nobis, as Appellant only asserted errors of law, and a writ of error coram nobis is not available to correct errors of law. View "State v. Harrison" on Justia Law